1

Internal Team Dynamics and Decision-Making

Team dynamics can be complex and self-defeating. While in many instances teams may

outperform individuals, members and leaders must remain vigilant against forces that negatively

impact team functioning and decision-making. Two common issues that can plague team

processes and success are the common information effect and groupthink. This analysis will

discuss several techniques to combat these issues, both ineffective and effective.

Avoidance Practices

The common information effect can cause many problems in team decision-making.

According to Thompson, this fallacy occurs when “the impact of information on the aggregate

decision of the team is directly related to the number of members of the team who know the

information prior to making a group decision” (2016, p.150). This essentially leads to

commonly known information being discussed more often and for longer periods than unique

information that would likely influence the decision process. One such instance is a hidden

profile, or a superior alternative which is not recognized as superior because each member has

only a portion of the information that supports it (Thompson, 2016).

Ineffective Strategies

Efforts to curb the common information effect by increasing the size of the team or the

information load actually have the opposite effect and increase the tendency to discuss common

information when the distribution of information stays the same (Thompson, 2016). Pre-

discussion polling can trigger conformity pressure, yet when members avoid stating their

preferences and hold a separate review from decision to review all facts the discussion still

favors facts initially shared, or common information (Thompson, 2016). Interestingly,

 2

accountability can affect decision-making negatively as well. However, Thompson points out

that “when groups are made to be accountable for their process (rather than outcome), they are

more likely to repeat unshared information and make better decisions” (2016, p.154).

Effective Strategies

Directing the focus of the discussion to unique information and reintroducing

noncommon information after it has been dismissed helps to improve the quality of decision-

making (Thompson, 2016). Leaders can greatly facilitate such efforts by acting in an

information management role and ensuring critical info is given due attention (Thompson, 2016).

Overall team health seems to play an important part in reducing the common information effect

as well. Groups where status differences were minimized, confidence and learning were

encouraged, and where a culture of trust and familiarity existed were less likely to make poor

decisions due to the common information effect (Thompson, 2016). Moreover, “the more team

members perceive themselves to be cooperatively interdependent with others on their team, the

more they share information, learn and are effective” (Thompson, 2016, p.157). It appears that

teams who have a sense of psychological safety and a learning, collaborative culture can more

effectively avoid the common information effect.

Groupthink

“Groupthink occurs when team members place consensus above all other priorities-

including using good judgment-when the consensus reflects poor judgment or improper or

immoral actions” (Thompson, 2016, p.173). This can result from conformity pressure,

management pressure, and overestimation of the group, though the main culprit seems to be

close-mindedness (Thompson, 2016).

 3

Prevention Techniques and Applications

Keeping the team size low can help to prevent groupthink as larger teams inhibit more

openness and criticism. Thompson highlights the fact that “teams with more than 10 members

may feel less personal responsibility for team outcomes” (2016, p.176). It is also important to

create a safe environment where teams do not feel the need to save face at the cost of poor

decision-making. “Often face-saving concerns prevent people from changing course, even when

the current course is clearly doubtful” (Thompson, 2016, p.176). For instance, Johnson &

Johnson suppressed evidence that talcum powder was associated with ovarian cancer

(Thompson, 2016). This information, if shared upon learning, would have led to lower

performance for a time, but could have prevented the public relations disaster of knowingly

selling carcinogenic products. If the company had felt safe knowing the poor performance could

be attributed to factors outside their control, there would have been no need to safe face and

suppress evidence.

Another prevention method is the risk technique, a structured discussion situation where

team members discuss dangers and risks involved with a decision while delaying discussion

about potential gains (Thompson, 2016). This would have been a hugely beneficial process for

General Motors, who waited over a decade to recall millions of cars with defective switches

because they were saving $.57 per switch (Thompson, 2016). If they had employed the risk

technique, potential savings or gains would not have been discussed and the overwhelming risk

and potential danger would likely have led to a much more prudent and ethical decision.
 4

Conclusion

Both the common information effect and groupthink can have devastating consequences

for teams and their decision-making processes. While there are several strategies that can reduce

the likelihood of both, keeping the team size small and focusing on exploring different

perspective can be useful to preventing both.

 5

References

Thompson, L. (2016). Making the Team: A Guide for Managers (6th ed.). Pearson.